Radni Ghafoori v. Officer Duncan, et al.

Summary

This order adjudicates several pending discovery, scheduling, e-filing, protective-order, and judicial-disqualification motions in a pro se civil rights action. The court reopens discovery, modifies the scheduling deadlines, denies or partially grants the motions as specified, and refers the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration to the assigned district judge.

Holdings

1. The court may modify the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, primarily considering the diligence of the moving party. Although plaintiff filed his motion to compel after the applicable deadline, the court found him sufficiently diligent under the circumstances, deemed the motion timely, and reopened discovery in part.
2. The motion to compel was denied without prejudice because discovery was being reopened, defendants agreed to supplement nonprivileged production, and the parties were directed to meet and confer regarding additional requests. If defendants withhold otherwise discoverable information based on privilege, they must comply with Rule 26(b)(5)'s requirement to expressly claim privilege and describe the withheld materials.
3. A plaintiff's dissatisfaction with an opponent's discovery responses does not justify refusing to appear for or delaying a properly noticed deposition. Rule 26(c) does not generally authorize a plaintiff to preclude his own deposition, and Rule 30(d)(3) does not support refusing to appear before or during a deposition absent grounds such as bad faith or unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.
4. A request for production is not properly filed as a motion unless and until the discovery request is at issue. Plaintiff's filing was terminated as a pending motion because it was not a properly presented motion to compel or sanctions motion and did not comply with the meet-and-confer requirements.
5. A pro se litigant was not entitled to permission to e-file absent a reason to deviate from the local rule governing pro se filings, although the Clerk was directed to configure electronic filing notifications for plaintiff.
6. Adverse procedural rulings, disagreements over discovery management, and alleged dissatisfaction with the judge's comments did not establish personal bias, prejudice, or an objectively reasonable basis to question the judge's impartiality. The motion for disqualification was denied.
7. Plaintiff's request for reconsideration of a procedural order was not before the undersigned magistrate judge because plaintiff addressed it to the district judge; the Clerk was directed to refer it to the assigned district judge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) to modify the scheduling order and deem plaintiff's untimely motion to compel timely.
2. Whether plaintiff was entitled to compel further production or obtain a privilege log.
3. Whether plaintiff could use a protective order to preclude or delay his own deposition until receiving satisfactory discovery responses.
4. Whether plaintiff's request for production of expert materials was properly filed and presented for judicial adjudication.
5. Whether plaintiff was entitled to permission to e-file as a pro se litigant.
6. Whether the magistrate judge was required to disqualify himself under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455.
7. Whether plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was properly before the magistrate judge or should be referred to the assigned district judge.

Disposition

other